Student perspectives on learning with wikis
Claire Hawkins
Edge Hill University
The use of wikis as a collaborative tool for learning activities has been reported by a number
of researchers ranging from those working with Primary school pupils (Woo et al, 2011)
Secondary age pupils (Lukin et al, 2009) and adult learners (Matthew et al, 2009; Wheeler et
al, 2008, Bruns & Humphreys, 2005). A wiki is a Web 2.0 collaborative tool which provides
an online space for people to create, edit and share jointly authored material; an example is
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page). Richardson (2006:60) describes
Wikipedia as “tens of thousands of Editors in Chief, people just like you and me, take on the
job of collecting the sum of human knowledge”. Despite the apparent advantages,
Majchrzak (2009) identifies that there is a need for further research into the pedagogical
use of wikis.
An opportunity arose to use a wiki while rewriting a module on computer based learning for
the undergraduate ICT Secondary Education with QTS* course. Previously all cohorts had
engaged with mainly face-to-face teaching with some limited online tool use. The aim was
to use a range of online tools to facilitate students’ exploration of theoretical content and to
collaborate to create shared understandings. For many of the students this was the first
time they had used these tools as a principal means of teaching and learning.
The literature on wikis suggests a range of benefits, including that “deeper engagement with
learning [is encouraged] through the act of authoring” (Wheeler et al, 2008:987) due to the
sense of audience and the greater care taken with written work as a result. Learners work
together to improve the overall product which involves feedback from peers which may
later contribute to individual attainment (Wheeler et al, 2008). Wheeler & Wheeler (2008)
found that some learners revisited the resource they had jointly created when they needed
to complete individual assignment work, using this as a starting point for their own work.
Further, Matthew et al (2009) found that learners extended their reading and research to be
able to contribute to the wiki and find research that their peers may not locate. Bruns &
Humphreys (2007) stress the role of the social constructivist pedagogy inherent in wiki use.
They suggest that
“The interaction and collaborative aspects of the learning scenario trigger a variety
of different types of learning processes, through explanation, disagreement, the
development of mutual regulation strategies and so on.” (ibid, 3)
The use of hypermedia to present and create content allows learners to develop
personalised pathways through knowledge (Wheeler et al, 2008) developing students’
understanding that there are multiple perspectives and knowledge needed to address issues
and problems (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005). Learners are exposed to new viewpoints which
challenge their own and they need to justify and create robust arguments with their peers
and the facilitator creating a richer learning experience (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005).
1
Other studies suggest that particular areas of higher order thinking skills are enhanced
through the use of wikis. These include the ability to apply knowledge to new situations, to
synthesize learning from different sources (Matthew et al, 2009), to analyse information
and arguments (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005), to reach consensus (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005;
Richardson, 2006), enhancing reflection (Higdon & Topaz, 2009), and reading critically
(Richardson, 2006). As suggested by Higdon and Topaz (2009:105) we are seeking to
develop “deep conceptual understanding” in our students rather than rote learning and
wikis appear to provide an opportunity to do this through a social constructivist model. In
addition, learners’ writing skills, analytical and critical thinking skills can improve through
reviewing peers’ contributions, more careful thought in constructing contributions (Wheeler
et al, 2008) and receiving feedback from peers (Minocha & Thomas, 2007).
Before teaching commenced we were aware of a number of challenges identified in the
literature. Studies suggested that students do not want to edit each others’ work and
equally did not want their own work changed by others (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005;
Wheeler et al, 2008). Matthew et al (2009:67) also found anxiety related to “entering the
wrong information, entering things that others might not agree with, or deleting
something”. Further, students were uncomfortable with releasing work in a draft state
(Bruns & Humphreys, 2005).
In all online communities there are some people who visit, read, but do not actively
contribute (Howard, 2010). These non-contributors are often referred to as lurkers
(Nonnecke and Preece, 2001). Howard (2010) makes the point that passive online
behaviour is the norm, although lurking can be viewed negatively by those who do
contribute. Those who are lurking are often more actively engaged with meaning-making
from the material and the postings available.
As may be expected technological difficulties and concerns feature in the literature
(Matthew et al, 2009). Students took time and guidance to become familiar with the
requirements of wiki construction, including issues around plagiarism, reliability of
resources used (Matthew et al, 2009), time management for contributing effectively
(Matthew et al, 2005; Minocha & Thomas, 2007) and constructive criticism (Minocha &
Thomas, 2007). The general consensus from the literature consulted is that the gains from
use of wikis in learning are greater than the difficulties experienced, so we worked to
minimise these challenges through appropriate planned interventions (Wheeler et al, 2008).
The research was exploratory, in that understanding was sought of the way in which
students experience wikis when learning and the factors which impact on the learning
experience. The research required the interpretation of individual experiences and
identification of variances between them, so the approach used was phenomenographic.
Phenomenography analyses the variance between individual’s perceptions of a
phenomenon in their own life-worlds. It helps the researcher to identify the full range of
experiences; seeking all that is possible rather than what is typical (Åkerlind, 2008).
Researchers using this approach do this by discerning variance between responses (Marton
& Pong, 2005; Runesson, 2006; Åkerlind, 2008).
2
Data was collected from the written contributions made to the wiki, including the page
history and development pathway of the wiki; and from four semi-structured, in-depth
interviews with students. The analysis of the wiki was used to construct a list of prompt
questions related to the data collected and based on the research questions. These were
used in semi-structured interviews when needed (Marton & Pong, 2005).
Non-probability, purposive sampling was used for this study to ensure a sample of learners
who were able to offer a wide variety of insights into the use of the wiki (Sarantakos, 2005).
To select suitable students, criteria was used which included their route through the degree
programme, their level of usage and type of engagement with the wiki and the range of
results achieved in the module. Although the sample size and variance of experience has
provided a suitable range of variance for exploration for the purposes of this study, it is
recognised that additional interviews would provide greater reliability.
Firstly it was clear that the wiki did aid learning; all of the interviewees commented that by
the end of the process they had found it helpful for their learning and all stated that they
would be happy to use a wiki for learning again, including those who had been more
reticent users. The results of the module and evaluations also indicated an increased level
of understanding compared to previous cohorts.
The data was analysed to identify how the wiki aided the learning process. The module was
arranged to enable wiki construction during the first nine weeks followed by time for
individual research and assignment completion. The analysis of the interview data
identified five categories which are explored below.
1. Breadth of research collated
Interviewees identified that the wiki covered a greater range and breadth of research than
they could have created or explored on their own. Peers found research which others may
not have encountered and this research could be further investigated by interested
individuals using the references provided (Matthew et al, 2009). It created a framework or
map of inter-connected knowledge. This added breadth to their own topic areas by
facilitating the exploration of the connections to see how they related back to the core topic
they had selected.
You sort of knew where you, a bit like a map really, you knew
where you were going. Whereas sometimes [...] if I were looking at
something different, like I say, you wouldn’t know where it was going
to go or how to get back, but with the wiki, with the links between
the different topics at the end, you already had a plan where you
were going with it.
3
Different students also identified different priorities and concepts within the information
they researched and presented these on the wiki. This provided scope for other students to
either ignore those conceptions as they did not concur with their own ideas (lower attaining
students),
Just find what interests me and what I agree with and then maybe
I’d have looked into that further
or to explore them further as they presented cognitive dissonance (higher attaining
students), facilitating a deepening of understanding (Bruns & Humphreys, 2005).
Knowing what other people’s ideas are. And like I said, somebody
would think of something, I think, “Oh yeah, never thought about that.
Oh I’ll have a look at that and see what else there is about it.”
2. Writing for an audience
Some interviewees were explicitly, very conscious of the judgement which could be made by
peers regarding their contributions.
To begin with it’s a little bit daunting ‘cause obviously you’re thinking
“Oh my god, if I write the wrong thing on here”, you don’t want to
look stupid and at the same time you’re very wary that people can
judge you
All of the interviewees drafted significant contributions off-line before adding them to the
wiki and they took additional care in framing their contributions. The contributions
synthesized their research on the topic given to them by their group. They were aware of a
need for accuracy and a possible need to justify what they had added or changed on the
wiki. This increased the individual’s analysis and critical judgement of their contributions
(Wheeler et al, 2008).
I wanted to be able to just make sure it was totally right and I was
happy with it before I made it public
3. Availability of peers’ work as exemplars
Lower attaining students developed confidence in their abilities by viewing and exploring
the work of their peers on the wiki. They also used the wiki to help them develop their own
4
academic writing skills (Wheeler et al, 2008). This was from checking academic writing
conventions (such as referencing) through to exploring how different peers could present
similar information.
Obviously five people can write something down about the same
thing and it won’t come across as the same. So it’s good to see
how other people put their information as well
The work of peers also helped clarify understandings of both the task and the topics in hand,
enabling individuals to move forward more decisively with their own research.
I wouldn’t know what was going on, I’d read someone’s bit, and then
I’d know exactly what I’m doing, and then I’d just get into it.
4. Iterative review process
Creating the wiki involved individual research tasks, fitting these into a group response and
editing the whole to make it coherent; this all contributed to developing individual
understanding of the topic (Luckin et al, 2009; Matthew et al, 2009; Wheeler et al, 2008;
Minocha & Thomas, 2007). This process involves a number of reviews of the research topic
on an individual and group basis.
The research tasks and contributions to the wiki made the process of assignment writing
quicker and easier. The essential research points had been identified and recorded on the
wiki and this acted as a good starting point for individual, in-depth research on their chosen
topics.
I was quite worried because I usually spend quite a lot longer on my
assignments than I did on that one. And I think that what it was, I
think it was just because I had that, it was like a supportive
framework really.
Also relevant resources had been identified which enabled individuals to further investigate
the sources identified by themselves and peers in the initial research process. The majority
of interviewees did go back and review the wiki content as they were researching and
writing their assignments (Wheeler and Wheeler, 2008). Those who did not review the wiki
had made extensive notes as they had researched for the wiki and used these notes instead.
5. Reflection on own practice
5
Within this context the learners are ICT teachers, therefore, using and exploring new
learning approaches involving technologies is in itself a valuable learning experience.
Interviewees commented on their future desire to use wikis in schools and their own
positive views on how this might affect learning in the classroom.
I think it definitely should be used in schools [...] I think kids would
love it. I think it’s really interactive.
___________________________________________________________________________
The students were at different levels regarding their ability to be analytical and to
synthesize and compare research in their academic work (Matthew et al, 2009; Bruns &
Humphreys, 2005). The wiki appears to have forced all of the students to engage more
rigorously and earlier with these higher level skills. In particular, the accessibility of peers’
work for comparison and to stimulate ideas helped (Wheeler et al, 2008). The sense of
audience and the judgement of peers encouraged students to ensure accuracy in their
contributions, but also to consider their writing style; to begin to synthesize and analyse;
and be prepared to justify their contributions (Bruns & Humphreys, 205). Interestingly, the
lower attainers received a confidence boost through their own judgement of peers’ work;
they felt that their writing or understanding was comparable, or they could improve through
use of the examples on the wiki.
The students needed to review the wiki to complete the tasks. This involved clarifying their
own understandings and contributing to the breadth of research. The wiki helped
demonstrate how people can extract different information from research and present this,
providing contrasting perspectives (Matthew et al, 2009). The inter-connections between
topics were explicit and students were able to explore these via the wiki and the additional
references included by peers. This encouraged further synthesis and analysis within topic
areas by individuals.
Alongside identifying how the wiki contributed to learning for these students, a number of
other factors were also identified which future users of wikis for teaching and learning may
wish to consider.
Students identified factors which influenced how they engaged with the wiki and suggested
that despite their competence with ICT, they needed further time to become adept at using
the wiki (Matthew et al, 2009). This was particularly true where they infrequently used Web
2.0 tools themselves. It was apparent that an element of resilience is required as when the
students persisted they quickly overcame these barriers and found the wiki very helpful for
learning.
Students also cited clear leadership as key for good group management, equitable
distribution of work and contributions and for maintaining equality of opportunity in the
groups. The cohort was given guideline rules for use of the wiki and was asked to discuss
and agree group rules.
6
There is an element of trust involved in wiki development: higher attainers struggled to trust
others’ contributions; conversely those who were lower attainers were more ready to
accept peers’ research and used this to clarify their own understandings. The development
processes and use of the wiki needs to be clarified at the start of the module. For instance,
can students directly reference material from the wiki in their assessed work? In this
module the students create the wiki on a range of topics and then select a single area to
research in-depth individually. This means that the wiki generates a wealth of information
and additional resources, so it was not feasible to expect all students to read everything.
We now advise students that they should use the wiki to generate personalised pathways
through the material rather than expect to read it all (Wheeler et al, 2008). They will have
in-depth knowledge of some areas, a good understanding of those inter-connecting with
those and surface understanding of others.
The development of the wiki flipped the workload for the module, requiring students to
complete research, readings and contributions on an ongoing basis from the start of the
module. The students reported that usually the majority of their research falls from the
middle of the module onwards. This reduced the workload and time required for
completion of the assessed work at the end of the module. While this is positive, students
need to be aware of the redistributed workload.
The study has also identified the relationship of successful wiki participation and maximising
learning through becoming a self-regulated learner. Further, it appears that the wiki assists
learners who persist with using the wiki to become better learners through the sharing of
peers’ work and peer feedback. Individuals not only learn from the information content
which is added, but the wiki also provides learners with exemplars to evaluate their own
work against. The notion of having easily accessible academic writing produced by peers
was of particular value to lower attaining students or those who were seeking to improve
their writing and academic skills. Although exemplars are shared and discussed with
cohorts these are static pieces of text, which students analyse as an exercise in class;
identifying and discussing aspects of academic writing. The value of the wiki is that they
have exemplars from each individual and then the groups work on these to further refine
them. They can be part of the discussion when edits are taking place and can see how
refinements in sentence structure can clarify meanings.
When you start your work, it’s a bit like a drawing board, everyone
puts their ideas on and then we can just like reassemble it into a
structured sentence.
The students used their peers’ work not only to identify how to improve their own writing,
but also to affirm that their writing was of sufficient quality via direct comparison. This gave
them additional confidence in their academic skills. The confidence provided by success
within the wiki could help influence future successful learning habits (Dembo & Seli, 2004).
7
Sharing the work of peers with lower attainers also served to clarify their understanding on
two levels:


Understanding of the task they needed to complete, by reviewing the contributions
their peers were posting on the wiki
Understanding of the topic through their peers interpretations of the material
Overall, a boon for the students was the ability to access a rich, collaboratively produced
resource when developing their own assessed work. The inter-relationships between the
topics were explicit through hyperlinks and additional research found by peers could be
explored. This saved them time and made the assignment writing process easier. In
addition, they were challenged by some contributions leading to more in-depth research,
exploration and justification of their own perspective.
8
References
Åkerlind, G. (2008) ‘Growing and developing as a university researcher’ Higher Education. 55
(2) pp 241 – 254.
Bruns, A. & Humphreys, S. (2005) ‘Wikis in teaching and assessment: the M/Cyclopedia
project.’ International Symposium on Wikis. Association for Computing Machinery. San
Diego, California, USA. (October 16 – 18, 2005).
Dembo, M. & Seli, H. (2004) ‘Students’ resistance to change in learning strategies courses’
Journal of Developmental Education. 27 (3) pp. 2 – 11.
Higdon, J. & Topaz, C. (2009) ‘Blogs and wikis as instructional tools: a social software
adaptation of just-in-time teaching’ College Teaching. 57(2). pp105 – 109.
Howard, T. W. (2010) Design to thrive: creating social networks and online communities that
last. Burlington, M.A., USA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
Luckin, R., Clark, W., Graber, R., Logan, K., Mee, A. & Oliver, M. (2009) ‘Do Web 2.0 tools
really open the door to learning? Practices, perceptions and profiles of 11 – 16 year old
students’. Learning, Media and Technology. 34 (2) pp 87 – 104.
Majchrzak, A. (2009) ‘Comment: Where is the theory in wikis?’ MIS Quarterly 33(1) pp18 –
20.
Marton, F. & Pong, W. Y. (2005) ‘On the unit of description in phenomenography’ Higher
Education Research & Development. 24 (4) pp. 335 - 348
Matthew, K., Felvegi, E. & Callaway, R. (2009) ‘Wiki as a collaborative learning tool in a
language arts methods class’ Journal of Research on Technology in Education 42(1). pp 51 –
72.
Minocha, S. and Thomas, P. (2007) ‘Collaborative learning in a wiki environment:
experiences from a software engineering course.’ New Review of Hypermedia and
Multimedia 13 (2) pp. 187 - 209
Nonnecke, B. & Preece, J. (2001) ‘Why lurkers lurk’ AMCIS Conference. Association for
Information Systems, Boston, USA. (1 June 2001).
Richardson, W. (2006) Blogs, wikis, podcasts, and other powerful web tools for classrooms.
California, USA: Corwin Press.
Runesson, U. (2006) ‘What is it possible to learn? On variation as a necessary condition for
learning’ Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 50 (4) pp. 397 – 410.
9
Sarantakos, S. (2005) Social Research. 3rd ed. Basingstoke: Palgrave MacMillan
Wheeler, S. & Wheeler, D. (2009) ‘Using wikis to promote quality learning in teacher
training’ Learning, Media & Technology 34(1) pp 1 – 10.
Wheeler, S., Yeomans, P. & Wheeler, D. (2008) ‘The good, the bad and the wiki: evaluating
student-generated content for collaborative learning’. British Journal of Educational
Technology 39(6) pp 987 – 995.
Woo, M., Chu, S., Ho, A. & Li, X. (2011) ‘Using a wiki to scaffold primary school students’
collaborative writing’ Educational Technology & Society 14 (1) pp 43 – 54.
10